“As top law enforcement officials, they have an obligation to their employees and to the people who elect them,” he said. “They say their opposition is about the Second Amendment, but our stand is on public safety. This measure will make it safer for our communities, safer for public employees and safer for the people we represent.”

“With this background check, we’ll close the loophole and prevent them (criminals) from getting a weapon at a gun show or meeting a guy in a parking lot (after using a website to set up a gun sale) and going home still angry,” he said. “We are saving people’s lives.”

Question 1, if approved, would extend federal background checks to private sales, including those at gun shows and others arranged through websites like ArmsList. Those who violate the law would face a gross misdemeanor charge and a potential penalty of one year in prison and/or a $2,000 fine.

This summer, 16 out of 17 Nevada sheriffs came out against Question 1. The National Rifle Association ran ads last week featuring Carson City Sheriff Kenny Furlong, Storey County Sheriff Gerald Antinoro and Washoe County Sheriff Chuck Allen, along with Attorney General Paul Laxalt, urging voters to “side with law enforcement” and reject the ballot measure.

At a meeting of the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association in July, Furlong criticized Question 1 for ignoring the role mental health issues play in gun violence.

“Any bill that does not address mental health, which I believe to be the core cause of the violence we’ve had across the country, does not meet my expectations,” he said. “Mental health has to be addressed.”

“We feel the mental health issue is a lot bigger than background checks between this or that individual,” he said. “It (Question 1) is going to put a huge burden on law enforcement, because if you sell a gun to a neighbor or a second party, that person has to undergo a background check. Now, we’re going to be inundated with these type of things. Not a big issue with gun show sales, but rather the private party sales.”

Dunlap rejects the notion that expanded background checks will make it harder on law enforcement.

“What people need to understand is that crimes are generally reported to us (as opposed to officers rooting them out),” he said, per The Las Vegas Sun. “Are we going to go door to door and ask, ‘Did you sell a gun to someone who shouldn’t have one?’ No, we’re not, any more than we go door to door asking, ‘Are you selling illegal drugs?’ If people report to us that guns were sold illegally, we’d respond. And as with any situation, we prioritize our calls for service. So it won’t be more taxing.”

Nevada is one of a handful of states — including Maine and California — with voter referendums expanding gun control on the November ballot.

“Question 1, if approved, would extend federal background checks to
private sales, including those at gun shows and others arranged through
websites like ArmsList. Those who violate the law would face a gross
misdemeanor charge and a potential penalty of one year in prison and/or a
$2,000 fine.”

Incorrect, it would not ‘extend’ anything. It would BAN private sales and transfers, including those at gun shows and others arranged through websites like ArmsList. It would also BAN handgun sales and transfers to persons age 18-20.

If this was actually about background checks they would try to pass a bill like the one Senator Coburn proposed in April of 2013. That bill would have expanded background checks to private sales by allowing buyers to go online and have an NICS background check be conducted on them, print a verification slip, take that slip to a seller who would then go online and put in the verification number along with information from the buyer’s I.D. to confirm that person had passed the background check. But Reid and the ammophobic democrats ordered that bill tabled without discussion or vote.

Andy Lowe

Higher costs that some people just can’t afford. Excessive paperwork & more storage space eaten up for gun stores & current and future FFL holders. So much for going green & saving trees, look at how many rolling papers you could use with all those trees.

Sho Rembo

Criminals don’t buy firearms legally now. Please explain how you would enforce a background check on Criminal A selling a firearm to Criminal B in a back alley, or anywhere else.

Why would it require more undercover officers? What’s wrong with using the exact same ones that are currently looking for prohibited people illegally purchasing illegal guns?

Bob Wintle

no problem there they’ll just tack on another cop tax!!

b4k9zp

Background checks are an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. They are unconstitutional and always have been unconstitutional. They always will be unconstitutional, for the Second Amendment prohibits any law (local, state or federal) that infringes upon the individual’s right to possess firearms at all times, wherever they want to go.

Indeed, but that hasn’t stopped them from being the law. Ideally anyone that is ‘too dangerous’ to possess a weapon should be locked up. If they are released then they should be able to posses a gun again.

Because then Reid couldn’t put out a Trojan Horse Bill and claim it was about background checks

Anonymous Anonymous

How exactly does this stop criminals from arranging to buy and sell guns online? You can get a disassembled gun mailed to you in practically any part of the world through the darknet. Only law abiding citizens will subject themselves to background checks on private party transfers. California has had a law like this for years, and last I checked, the gangs and cartels are still packing plenty of heat.

Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

It doesnt

Donald Richman

Where on- line can I buy a lower receiver of any gun without a BG check? The rest are parts. The lower receiver is the only part that is considered the gun. That is the part with the serial number.

Anonymous Anonymous

That’s the white (legal) market. There’s nothing the police can do to stop private encrypted deals between black market buyers and sellers from occurring. There are entire illicit marketplaces on the darknet that sell all manner of drugs and firearms, albeit at greatly inflated prices. Last I heard, AKs are going for $3K.

Logan Waltz

These people are so stupid. A criminal selling to another criminal will never be stopped by a background check. Background checks do not create public safety.

The Las Vegas metropolitan police department has over 2600 police officers alone, that doesn’t include the city of North Las Vegas or the City of Henderson and this guy represents 1500 in the WHOLE STATE!

HES a nobody that has been bought by Bloombergs money. And IMHO Sheriff Joe Lombardo, who heads the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is as big of a embarrassment to the men and women of the LVMP as anyone could be. When he was running for Sheriff the motto of the officers I know was ” ANYONE BUT JOE!” I doubt his tenure as Sheriff will be long.

Bob Wintle

So how does this identify a criminal?? You can be a criminal & still own a gun you just can’t be a FELON!!! Nothing but another way to stick it to the law abiding citizen!! Short term sheriff Joe is a Gillespie echo!!!

Mike Coggins

IMHO it’s meant to replace the “Blue Card” gun registration that the state banned Las Vegas from doing and making it a state and federal gun tracking program.

mate556

“With this background check, we’ll close the loophole and prevent them (criminals) from getting a weapon at a gun show or meeting a guy in a parking lot (after using a website to set up a gun sale) and going home still angry,” he said. “We are saving people’s lives.

How exactly? Are you going to station LEOs in every single parking lot in Nevada? I didn’t know crime was not a big deal in Nevada that you could do that. If he truly thinks that he is either, not that intelligent, or delusional.

Someone should write a provision in the law that if it passes and it doesn’t work then lawmakers that pass such laws are then complicit in the crime itself. I mean, they want owners whose firearms are stolen responsible for the crimes then done with them. Should be the same thing.

Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

I know right?

DaveinUtah

This union Dips#it has been drinking the leftist Koolaid for far too long.
It has been proven over and over that More Guns = Less Crime.
His support of a unlawful gun registry through universal background checks just proves he and his union have been bought off by the Leftist/Progressive/Democrap Party.

Merlin

Since when do criminals get guns at gun shows? The loopholes they use are backstreet acquisition and theft. This proposition is like a retarded dog barking up the wrong tree. Background checks already exist to keep honest people honest. Stating public safety is simply rectal incubation of thought.

b4k9zp

“Question 1” expands the unconstitutional background checks. It most certainly is a question of infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and a violation of the 2nd amendment (as well as Article IV, section two, paragraph one and Section one of the 14th ratified amendment to the US Constitution.

jp11

…..SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
That’s clear to most people. Libs don’t care.

b4k9zp

Liberals are irrational and unable to reason ain any recognizable manner.

leatherneckga

Screw your public safety punk. It’s not law and even if it becomes “law” it will be automatically voided. The second amendment shall NOT be infringed.

Clifford Mechels

With this background check, we’ll close the loophole and prevent them
(criminals) from getting a weapon at a gun show or meeting a guy in a
parking lot (after using a website to set up a gun sale) and going home
still angry,” he said. “We are saving people’s lives.”
Blatant LIE.

How are you even going to know a “private sale” is happening, unless you illegally surveille participants in an internet based sale to know when and where a private gun sale is taking place. How many, if any, non dealers sell at a gun show? Its more likely to happen near a “gun buyback”.

Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

This is just another law to keep guns from honest citizens. This isn’t about public saftey, unless public saftey is disarming the public. And as a member of the public, I can tell you that doesn’t make the public safer.

davidesch

So a “public safety” question is more important than the Constitution? So why isn’t this man championing the removal of all swimming pools, private automobiles, household chemicals and fatty foods, which kill far more than lawfully owned firearms? This person thinks a LAW will stop parking lot deals for firearms? I don’t know what he’s smoking, but it’s probably VERY good, and highly illegal, stuff.

b4k9zp

Why doesn’t this guy advocate making abortion the crime of first degree murder, since it is the leading cause of death in the United States, far outstripping (with over 950,000 abortions willfully committed in 2014 (and that doesn’t count the babies murdered with the “morning after” pill), than the second place cause of death-heart disease, which killed over 614,000 Americans in 2014.

Silicon base lifeform

so how many criminals will follow this if it passes?

b4k9zp

absolutely none–but they will rejoice, because they know that their victims will be disarmed, making it safer for them to rob, rape, assault and murder people.

Because bad guys will comply with the law, as they have time and time again….
/sarc

It is about an infringement on a recognized Right, not a granted Privilege.

Rule of Law vs Rule of Beliefs/Emotions/Agenda. I’ll go with Rule of Law, since it is what “levels the playing field” for good people multitudes of times over.

But then, I’m a rational person, who looks at the data and the conclusions from that data and craft my opinion from that. Sure, I trust my gut on some things…but in general, a common playbook is what the Rule of Law represents.

#BlackRobesMatter

ronin10

Freedom is always taken away under the guise of safety and security. They are always doing it for our own good. The premise that anyone knows what I need more than I do is abhorrent to me. As a free citizen, that is for me to decide and no one else.

Bowserb

Once again, the left wants more laws as an alternative to enforcing existing laws. Millions of rejected 4473’s by people illegally trying to buy a gun. Virtually no prosecutions. Enforce existing “gun laws”. Enforce existing immigration laws. Put criminals in prison for their entire sentences. See the change.

No, its just more incremental gun grabbing by leftists trying to take over our state. No law will stop violence.

Mark Hatzi

ordinary
liberal union hack, more than likely paid millions by bloomberg to
support his anti gun stance since 90%+ of all Nevada Law Enforcement
officers are totally against question 1.. LOL and since police chiefs,
sheriffs, and the FOP all stand for no on 1, he can kiss my Nevada ass

Mark Hatzi

you can bet, when a title says UNION, they are in the pocket of the democrats.. Surprisingly, the FOP is against this guy

Kmat

If you really are concerned about Public Safety enforce the current gun laws make the use of a gun a Major Crime including anyone involved in the criminal activity equally liable. 6 people in a car and one fires a gun in a drive by, all 6 are equally guilty. Use a gun go to jail, I like California’s 5 – 10 life gun law. Taking my guns will only make Criminals Safer.

Ron Roske

The second amendment was written, and still says, the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”! The courts have ruled that common sense needs to be instituted, yet the second amendment does not mention that as being a necessity. Additionally, common sense is a relative thing and what may appear to be common sense to you may not be the same thing that your neighbor sees as being common sense.
What is being proposed by this “public safety” proposal is simply another infringement on peoples right to keep and bear arms.

Warren Blum

Sorry Jim ur wrong and every cop who backs this bill. It’s very misleading and set up by bloomberg. I can’t believe any cop today can back this bill and anyone in the demorat party. All of you better hope Clinton doesn’t get in. She will confiscate and your problems on the street will quadruple. This bill is masked to put innocent people in jail and make criminals out of people.

Warren Blum

Take my guns and I’ll buy them on the street. Of course it will be more expensive but I will have a gun. I’m not a fan of these new millenial cops. Takes 10 of them to take 1 person out. Trump 2016 or this country is finished. I imagine Jim will vote for Hillary too. Go out and make a few more dui arrests. That’s all u cops in today’s world do anyway.

daleowens@comcast.net

More and more infringements on a Constitutional Amendment(Law) that says ‘Shall not be Infringed”! Next will be Registration which is the first step to confiscation, always!!!